Pubdate: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 Source: Indianapolis Star (IN) Copyright: 2000 Indianapolis Newspapers Inc. Contact: http://www.starnews.com/ Forum: http://forum.circlecity.com/circlecity/index.html THE RIGHT DECISION ON INDY ROADBLOCKS Police agencies have a hard time balancing the public's need to be protected with its right to privacy. With Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down an Indianapolis drug roadblock program, the task becomes harder, but fairer, too. The high court found that a series of drug roadblocks set up by Indianapolis police in 1998 infringed on motorists' Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable searches and seizures. Though most of the traffic stops lasted only a few minutes, the court said the citizens' right to drive unrestricted on the roadways outweighs the speculative hope of catching lawbreakers at random. The Indianapolis Police Department launched the roadblocks in response to neighborhood complaints about festering crime, much of it believed to be drug-related. In four months, officers pulled over 1,161 vehicles and made 104 arrests on various infractions, including 55 on drug charges. While maintaining the searches were legal, Indianapolis suspended the roadblocks when two motorists, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, filed suit in federal court. The Supreme Court ruling was not surprising given the tactics used by police. Cars were selected at random and motorists questioned while a drug sniffing dog was led around their cars. While the court said its ruling does not prohibit the continued use of other focused types of roadblocks, such as border checkpoints and traps to snare drunk drivers, the Indianapolis model went too far. "If this case were to rest on such a high level of generality, there would be little check on the authorities' ability to construct roadblocks for almost any conceivable law enforcement purpose," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor wrote for the 6-3 majority. In other words, the Indianapolis roadblocks sent police on unlimited fishing expeditions. Despite the public's intense interest in controlling drug traffic, the end did not justify the means. - --- MAP posted-by: Beth